The document may not clear up every question states and others may have, however. More on that below.

First, one key point: The FAQ is clear that states don't have to make changes to their proposals in response to feedback from the department and peer reviewers who read the plans. They can submit them as is, and see if they get approved, or not.

"This initial feedback is not an approval or denial of a State plan; however, a State is still required to submit a plan that complies with all statutory requirements. Each State then has the opportunity to revise, further describe, add information and/or make changes and resubmit its plan; however, no State is required to do so," the FAQ says.

The new FAQ also notes that it will be up to states to come up with their own definitions of technical, but important, terms that aren't explained in the law. These include what it means for academic goals to be "ambitious" or for certain indicators to carry "substantial" weight.

But it says the "the Secretary is obligated to make a determination as to whether a State's proposed definition, on its face, is reasonable."

That clarification matters, especially when it comes to ambitious goals. That's because Minnich and others in Washington were particularly miffed that the department's feedback letter to Delaware, in particular, questioned whether the state's student achievement goals were sufficiently "ambitious." That's despite language in ESSA clearly prohibiting the secretary from telling states what their goals can or can't be.

Minnich's statement also questioned the department's interpretation of two other parts of Delaware's plan, dealing with restrictions on the use of science and social studies tests as academic indicators, and whether states can use Advanced Placement tests to determine if students are ready for college or career.

When ESSA was under development, Alexander was the biggest champion of limiting the department's power to tell states how to hold their schools accountable. And he said earlier this year that he expected DeVos would greenlight every state's plan.

So what exactly does the new FAQ mean for states?

It's tough to say for sure. The language on goals could suggest that Delaware and other states may just have to provide the feds with documentation explaining why they think their goals are "ambitious." But they can still use whatever goals they think make sense.

The FAQ document doesn't directly address some other big questions raised by Delaware's letter, however. It's still unclear whether DeVos and Company—who have sole discretion on whether to give a thumbs up or down on a state's plan—will allow Delaware, or any other state, to include social studies and science as academic indicators, in the same way as reading and math.

And it's unclear whether Delaware, or any other state, can give districts a range of choices to demonstrate college- and career-readiness.

Delaware had wanted to give its districts a variety of options for proving their students are ready for the challenges of postsecondary education. Under Delaware's proposal, districts could use scores on Advanced Placement tests, scores on International Baccalaureate tests, the SAT, or dual-enrollment course grades to meet that requirement. The department, though, indicated to Delaware in its feedback letter that the proposal may not pass muster, because not all schools offer AP or IB classes, and it's unclear whether a "significant percentage" of kids take the tests.

The issue doesn't only apply to Delaware. At least a dozen states have written AP or IB tests into their plans.

But from reading the FAQ, it's difficult to tell whether DeVos would reject Delaware—and other states—for trying to use a range of indicators to demonstrate college-and-career readiness. It's possible states simply need to provide the department with more information to show that the different indicators can be compared to one another.

In fact, some former Obama administration officials were scratching their heads over the FAQ. They say the department needs to be much more specific.

Categories:

Tags:

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.